McCarthyism

I don't believe that at all:

Mc·Car·thy·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kärth-zm)
n.
The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

There are some things in the current American political climate that could be seen to be heading towards this with regard to terrorism. I have not, however seen any evidence of McCarthyism, in particular, with regard to the Iraq situation
 
Yeah, this is a completely different situation. I'm not sure where you'd begin to show this is anything like McCarthyism. Do you even believe America is using McCarthyism or is this thread just for fun?
 
I wanted to see what other people thought, after reading about how McCarthism was used by the Parents and Television Committee used it. I understand it to be, and I quote from Kenneth C. Davis' Don't Know Much About History, "a smear campaign of groundless accusations from which the accused cannot escape from, because professions of innocence become admissions of guilt ans only confessions are accepted." To play the devil's personal mercenary for a moment, let's say that the UN's denial of weapons in Iraq are confessions that they are hidden to the US. I realise I'm treading on a sensitive topic here, as I know the thousands of lives that were destroyed by McCarthy, but it would seem that some believe that America might go so far as to use such dirty tricks. I personnaly want to be objective and wait and see, if at all possible, without looking like the enemy in anyone's eyes.
 
Well,...

The thing in the modern day and age that's closest to McCarthyism is probably charges of racial bias on University campuses. There's a fairly simple formula involved. Charge bias, get a few key (largely black, as it turns out) minority leaders involved (usually Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), and launch a wave of protests at the location. Claim that anyone who doesn't support (say, because they go to class instead of joining your protest) you is a racist, and that dialogue over the "facts" is irrelevant because the facts of the case have already been settled. And then keep it up until the administration caves to your demands by firing the scapegoated faculty member (or dismissing the scapegoated student, depending on the specific incident) and promising to hire more minority faculty members.
 
Originally posted by junior
Well,...

The thing in the modern day and age that's closest to McCarthyism is probably charges of racial bias on University campuses. There's a fairly simple formula involved. Charge bias, get a few key (largely black, as it turns out) minority leaders involved (usually Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), and launch a wave of protests at the location. Claim that anyone who doesn't support (say, because they go to class instead of joining your protest) you is a racist, and that dialogue over the "facts" is irrelevant because the facts of the case have already been settled. And then keep it up until the administration caves to your demands by firing the scapegoated faculty member (or dismissing the scapegoated student, depending on the specific incident) and promising to hire more minority faculty members.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's a play called The Big Lie, from the book UFO's, JFK and Elvis, I believe. Basically, "if you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, they will believe you, even if what you're saying is utter crap."
 
Based on the deffinition "a smear campaign of groundless accusations from which the accused cannot escape from, because professions of innocence become admissions of guilt ans only confessions are accepted," I think that is something that is happening with Iraq now, and is something the US does quite often - and (speculation) probably more than we know.
 
McCarthyism really isn't a term you can use for this. It's something that's employed on the domestic scene, and not really comparable to international smear campaigns which, may or may not have some degree of similarity.

I'll also point out that the popularization of the concept of the big lie is generally attributed to Hitler and Goebbels. As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (Volume 1, Chapter 10):

By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War they took the weapon of moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland. In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick-a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top